I've been working as the Social Media Editor and a staff writer at Forbes since October 2011. Prior to that, I worked as a freelance writer and contributor here. On this blog, I focus on futurism, cutting edge technology, and breaking research. Follow me on Twitter - @thealexknapp. You can email me at aknapp@forbes.com

Why Marco Rubio Needs To Know That The Earth Is Billions Of Years Old

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who many political observers think has a strong shot to be a 2016 Presidential candidate, just finished a lengthy interview with GQ that you can read here. One thing that struck my interest here, as someone who often reports on science, was Rubio’s answer when he was asked the question, “How old do you think the Earth is.”

In response, Rubio told GQ that, “I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.”

The emphasis in Rubio’s statement is mine. I say that because the age of the universe has a lot to do with how our economy is going to grow. That’s because large parts of the economy absolutely depend on scientists being right about either the age of the Universe or the laws of the Universe that allow scientists to determine its age. For example, astronomers recently discovered a galaxy that is over 13 billion light years away from Earth. That is, at its distance, it took the light from the Galaxy over 13 billion years to reach us.

Now, Marco Rubio’s Republican colleague Representative Paul Broun, who sits on the House Committee on Science and Technology, recently stated that it was his belief that the Universe is only 9,000 years old. Well, if Broun is right and physicists are wrong, then we have a real problem. Virtually all modern technology relies on optics in some way, shape or form. And in the science of optics, the fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum is taken for granted. But the speed of light must not be constant if the universe is only 9,000 years old. It must be capable of being much, much faster. That means that the fundamental physics underlying the Internet, DVDs, laser surgery, and many many more critical parts of the economy are based on bad science. The consequences of that could be drastic, given our dependence on optics for our economic growth.

Here’s an even more disturbing thought – scientists currently believe that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old because radioactive substances decay at generally stable rates. Accordingly, by observing how much of a radioactive substance has decayed, scientists are able to determine how old that substance is. However, if the Earth is only 9,000 years old, then radioactive decay rates are unstable and subject to rapid acceleration under completely unknown circumstances. This poses an enormous danger to the country’s nuclear power plants, which could undergo an unanticipated meltdown at any time due to currently unpredictable circumstances. Likewise, accelerated decay could lead to the detonation of our nuclear weapons, and cause injuries and death to people undergoing radioactive treatments in hospitals. Any of these circumstances would obviously have a large economic impact.

If the Earth is really 9,000 years old, as Paul Broun believes and Rubio is willing to remain ignorant about, it becomes imperative to shut down our nuclear plants and dismantle our nuclear stockpiles now until such time as scientists are able to ascertain what circumstances exist that could cause deadly acceleration of radioactive decay and determine how to prevent it from happening.

The bottom line is that this economy, at its root, is built on a web of scientific knowledge from physics to chemistry to biology. It’s impossible to just cherry pick out parts we don’t like. If the Earth is 9,000 years old, then virtually the entire construct of modern science is simply wrong. Not only that, most of the technology that we rely on most likely wouldn’t work – as they’re dependent on science that operates on the same physical laws that demonstrate the age of the universe.

Now, this doesn’t mean that our representatives to the Congress and to the Senate should be scientific experts. But if they hold ideas about the world around us that are fundamentally at odds with scientific evidence, then that will ultimately infringe on their ability to make reasoned judgments about a host of issues where the economy touches technology. And that could end up harming the economy as a whole.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I believe Paul Brown and Marco Rubio are correct in saying that this Earth, and this universe are thousands, not billions of years old. And I have heard some pretty compelling scientific (not biblical) explanations.

My understanding it that you have to ask, by whose clock, and where was it?

I’m sorry but the Big Bang has been totally debunked, and with it a lot of junk science with it. Unfortunately most people aren’t listening to the true scientific reasons why that theory is false.

The universe more likely came from a Black Hole which turned into a White Hole. And time runs differently inside the event horizon of a Black Hole. It is very plausible that if the Earth was created in a different part of the Black Hole, that as the White Hole was stretched out into the universe as we see it today that the earth and this universe were really created in “six days”.

Please keep an open mind and do some thorough research for yourself. There are very good explanations out there. Start with Russ Humphrey.

The level of blithe ignorance about science topics is frankly frightening, to say the least. These are the people we are trusting to run this country and guide us on a challenging course in the 21st century, and some of them seem completely ignorant of the most basic tenets of knowledge. It’s equally alarming how willing they and others seem to be to substitute unprovable religious dogmas for well-understood scientific concepts, and never question their own logic in doing so. When I see an obviously intelligent elected official spouting nonsense like this, it makes me wonder what kind of future we really have, when our leaders put more faith in invisible deities and the ramblings of bronze-age religious tracts, than the evidence of their own eyes. I guess faith always trumps logic.

Then tell us O Great One, what does science say about the existence of the universe? Since all science is cause and effect, what was the cause for the effect. Since no one has an answer to that does that make all of us ineligible to hold office or even to speak or write? An otherwise intelligent person has to know the answer so I can vote or not vote for them, knowing that no one knows and if they did know they wouldn’t be human.

Actually, the correct age of the earth cannot be determined by anyone. We humans are not that smart. Just ask any 10 top scientists in their fields and they can give you at least 2 different answers. Therefore, it’s not basic science. It’s not 2+2 like you think. I think MR’s answer is very smart, level-headed, humble, and best of all, tolerant. What would you call someone so sure of himself even though he is so wrong and yet call everyone who disagrees with him a fool?

Like most people, you seem to think all knowledge is immutable and not subject to expansion or revision. This is the typical mindset of people raised in a religious environment, they think only in absolutes. The age of the Earth is well-known to within a reasonable factor of a few percent. It is 4.5, or 4.6, or 4.7 billion years. It is NOT 6000 years, 9000 years, or 20,000 years. Do you grasp the difference? It is not a matter of “different scientists will give you different answers.” No, they won’t, within any magnitude that matters.

“For example, astronomers recently discovered a galaxy that is over 13 billion light years away from Earth. That is, at its distance, it took the light from the Galaxy over 13 billion years to reach us.” These types of arguments are pointless. If you believe God created the Universe why would you believe that in addition to creating Earth, the sun, and all the other stars he could not create light in motion. I mean, if you can create a sun from nothing and put it wherever you want you can surely create some photons and put them wherever you feel like to. If you can create the Earth from nothing and impart an orbital velocity on it such it is capable of safely orbiting the sun for thousands of years then surely you can impart a velocity vector to those photons you just created from nothing in deep space. The same argument applies radioactive decay, we can only assume how much radioactive material was there in the first place. You will never convert a creationist with a science based argument because you cannot prove your initial assumptions are accurate. A better tactic might be to ask the creationist why would God want to create the appearance of a universe that was much older than it appears to be?

So no, believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old does not invalidate any part of scientific wisdom. The only thing it does is give liberals fits of rage, which is almost as entertaining as giving conservatives fits of rage. As for me, I’ll simply agree with Rubio that the age of the universe has nothing to do how we are going to make American government functional again and how we are going to get people back to work.

Good point regarding the need for adequate time for starlight to reach earth. Don’t really care if the creation process was very long or relatively short. MR states a fair position. This is what struck me. The author thinks that starlight visable from earth is a serious problem for the concept of a relatively short history for the universe. This idea misses the central idea of recent creation__apparent age. The idea that biological groups appeared without reproductive contributions from previous organisms. Adult forms. That is, a tree was created without having first been a seed that was formed by the reproductive process of previous trees. Like water already in a hose, like blood in the veins of a newly created dinosaur, created star light visible on earth. This idea is inherent in the recent universe history model.